Looking for alternative to Plusnet
Adam
As I enter my third day at the office with no ADSL connection from Plusnet,
I'm beginning to think that this is getting beyond a joke and I should think
about finding a new ISP.
The problem is some kind of fault on the line. According the details of the
case on Plusnet's website, they have now - on the third day of the problem -
reported the issue to BT for resolution. Why on earth did it have to take
them so long to do this? I realise that faults on BT equipment may be
outwith Plusnet's control, but surely they could report the problem sooner?
After a few calls to Plusnet's tech support which didn't get beyond "your
fault will be investigated in due course but it could take 3 days", I phoned
their customer services to let them know that trying to run a business with
no access to the internet for 3 days was not really on. Their response was
that any other ISP would be just as bad.
Now I've been with Plusnet for several years, and in the past I have found
them to be excellent. But I see they have recently become a PLC, and have no
doubt adopted PLC standards of customer service (ie cut costs as much as
possible to maximise short term profits, and don't worry about all the
customers who will leave us as we'll have been paid our big director's bonus
by then).
The sad thing is that their customer service line of "the other ISPs are
just as bad" may well be true, but I think I'm going to have to find out.
This whole incident has really put me off Plusnet.
Can anyone recommend an ISP that would not leave their customers with no
ADSL connection for 3 days and think this is perfectly acceptable? I need
the connection for business use, so my main concern is reliability and high
levels of customer service, rather than rock bottom prices.
Many thanks for any suggestions.
Adam
JC
[snipped]
>
>Can anyone recommend an ISP that would not leave their customers with no
>ADSL connection for 3 days and think this is perfectly acceptable? I need
>the connection for business use, so my main concern is reliability and high
>levels of customer service, rather than rock bottom prices.
>
>Many thanks for any suggestions.
>
>Adam
>
In a recent Which survey of Broadband ISPs, the top 10 were listed as
1. Metronet www.metronet.co.uk
2. Freedom2Surf www.freedom2surf.net
3. Zen Internet www.zen.co.uk
4. Nildram www.nildram.co.uk
5. Eclipse www.eclipse.net.uk
6. Waitrose www.waitrose.com/web_access/index.asp
7. Plusnet www.plus.net
8. Force 9 www.f9.net.uk
9. Demon www.demon.net
10. Pipex www.solo.pipex.net
Probably not a bad place to start.
Incidentally, when I move house in a few weeks, I will probably be going
with Zen.
--
Regards
John [Essex, UK]
Remove the obvious spamtrap to reply
Ray Bellis
> get beyond "your fault will be investigated in due course
> but it could take 3 days", I phoned their customer
> services to let them know that trying to run a business
> with no access to the internet for 3 days was not really
> on. Their response was that any other ISP would be just
> as bad.
BT ADSL has very little by way of service level guarantee, and it's
unfortunately perfectly normal for faults to sit in BT's own job queue
for over a day before they even get to first-phase diagnostics. (bad as
that sounds, it's significantly better than BT were managing a couple of
months ago).
Notwithstanding Plusnet's apparent delay reporting your fault to BT, if
getting access to the internet is so crucial to running your business
then it's *your* responsibility to make sure you can do so.
ADSL is *not* suitable for business critical usage unless you've made
alternative arrangements for internet access when it fails.
Ray
Ray Bellis
> fault to BT, if getting access to the internet is so
> crucial to running your business then it's *your*
> responsibility to make sure you can do so.
p.s. don't take this as a dig at you personally.
I just feel it's ver important that businesses are made aware of the
limitations of ADSL and that they should not rely on it if they can't
manage without net access for a few days at a time.
Ray
George Weston
"Adam" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4317f3b9$0$26350$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Hi Folks
>
> As I enter my third day at the office with no ADSL connection from
> Plusnet,
> I'm beginning to think that this is getting beyond a joke and I should
> think
> about finding a new ISP.
>
> The problem is some kind of fault on the line.
It would be interesting to find out exactly when Plusnet actually reported
the fault to BT - it could be that the updating of the ticket might have
been delayed rather than the actual reporting bit.
As for BT, they've gone from bad to worse over the past few years, as most
of us know. I used to work for them. When I left them 10 years ago, we had
targets to meet, such as new lines provided within (if I remember rightly)
two days and fault reports attended to within x (can't remember) hours - not
weeks! And if you rang 151 you spoke to a technician, not a machine.
Where are BT now? "Press 1 if you have a fault, press 2 if you..." automated
telephone answering systems, call centres in India, albeit staffed by
well-educated and well-meaning people but hell to deal with if you have
something complicated to report and need a bit of expertise. And now they've
set up BT Wholesale, who can't/won't talk to end users.
Oh - and sky-high prices for their own-brand products.
Having migrated away from BT to Plusnet, I'm not expecting a gold-plated
service, as I'm only paying 50% of my previous broadband charge. Yes, I've
had a few problems but they've been dealt with reasonably quickly and I'm
enjoying the same service for half the price.
What I'm saying is, you probably get what you pay for (with the notable
exception of BT, who charge the earth and don't really deliver anything
extra for the money).
Best of luck elsewhere - wherever you end up. Your new ISP will still be
beholden to BT Wholesale unless you can get on to Cable - and the customer
service from Cable firms is not legendary either!
George
Roger M
Adam <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
One company which used to have a very good reputation - although I have not
heard a lot about them lately - is Andrews and Arnold
http://www.aaisp.net.uk/
Not the cheapest - but they may support you better than some of the mass
market providers.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.
Keith Nuttall
<news:4318158b$0$17494$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>:
> still be beholden to BT Wholesale unless you can get on to Cable -
> and the customer service from Cable firms is not legendary either!
Oh god, I'm depressed now.
--
Keith Nuttall
www.yammer.co.uk
Re-type the e-mail address how it sounds, remove .invalid
JC
>One company which used to have a very good reputation - although I have not
>heard a lot about them lately - is Andrews and Arnold
>http://www.aaisp.net.uk/
>
>Not the cheapest - but they may support you better than some of the mass
>market providers.
Not the cheapest???? That's something of an understatement...their tariffs
are ludicrous. It's a wonder they have any customers at all!
poster
>Can anyone recommend an ISP that would not leave their customers with no
>ADSL connection for 3 days and think this is perfectly acceptable?
I doubt any think it "perfectly acceptable", but without wanting to know
the details of the fault, it may well be that others would seem to be as
sluggish when it comes to getting BT Wholesale involved.
>I need the connection for business use, so my main concern is reliability
>and high levels of customer service, rather than rock bottom prices.
Well, you don't need "high levels of customer service" if you have a backup
provider. Really little need to know how good customer services staff is - if
you have problems on one service you switch to the other and it is no longer a
headache so good or bad (so long as they get it sorted out) the time taken is
less of a concern, or that's the way I see it.
I can recommend Metronet from both personal use and that of some clients, both
as primary service or the reserve. There are others, without restrictions on
a business using their cheaper (primarily 'home') accounts, too, but Metronet
gives a fixed IP without any silly monthly or high initial fee for same.
You can get various speeds of connection starting from 10 +VAT ( 500 kbps,
400 MB included, OK for e-mail, and as a reserve for DNS lookups, maybe) to
the PayGo 2000 (kbps) costing /from/ 18.75 a month and including 10 GB.
As business depends more and more on e-mail over fax, I would think having a
second line and second ISP would be something they all consider. Peter M.
poster
>In a recent Which survey of Broadband ISPs, the top 10 were listed as
>
>Probably not a bad place to start.
except the numbers of customers who took part varied from a few dozen to a
few thousand, and samples so small are difficult to consider as credible
(especially from the Which? people who should have known better and not
have published until they had greater numbers from all ISPs). Peter.
Pedt
10:08:50 on Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Roger M <r...@privacy.net> wibbled
>
>One company which used to have a very good reputation - although I have not
>heard a lot about them lately - is Andrews and Arnold
>http://www.aaisp.net.uk/
>
>Not the cheapest - but they may support you better than some of the mass
>market providers.
But only if you want the support 9-5 Mon-Fri.
--
Pedt
marek
news:dubgh1p5opvvphhu9...@news.plus.net...
...and I was thinking how representative those happy customers are, and how
related their happiness is to the type of service expected by the poster.
I might be happy even with any odd AOL package if all I wanted was "fast
broadband" and I'd have no clue about caps, p2p, voip, mail server, etc, but
most
"broadband" services are simply not good enough if you dig deep into their t
+ t...
marek
www.britishnurse.com
> Well, you don't need "high levels of customer service" if you have a
> backup
> provider. Really little need to know how good customer services staff
> is - if
Echo that. If cost is no object, get a backup provider - even £15/month on a
MaxDSL type package would work well for you.
Sure, there might be "better" ISPs for uptime than PlusNet, but PlusNet
aren't >considerably< worse than any of the others imo. They're going
downhill (in terms of disconnections - rarely do I get 6-10 hours without a
d/c then r/c) but aren't even close to the bottom yet to warrant dropping
them.
All in my opinion, of course.
--
Liddle Feesh
o
o
<"//><
Pedt
07:39:53 on Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Adam <nos...@nospam.com> wibbled
>Hi Folks
>
>As I enter my third day at the office with no ADSL connection from Plusnet,
>I'm beginning to think that this is getting beyond a joke and I should think
>about finding a new ISP.
>
>The problem is some kind of fault on the line. According the details of the
>case on Plusnet's website, they have now - on the third day of the problem -
>reported the issue to BT for resolution. Why on earth did it have to take
>them so long to do this? I realise that faults on BT equipment may be
>outwith Plusnet's control, but surely they could report the problem sooner?
But was the ticket on the web site updated at the same time or later?
May well have updated the ticket long after it was reported but, then
again, it may have been updated at the same time. When the BT engineer
phones you it might be worth asking when it was reported.
>
>After a few calls to Plusnet's tech support which didn't get beyond "your
>fault will be investigated in due course but it could take 3 days", I phoned
>their customer services to let them know that trying to run a business with
>no access to the internet for 3 days was not really on.
If access to the Internet is essential then shouldn't you have some
backup access rather than relying on a single ADSL line?
>Their response was that any other ISP would be just as bad.
It's certainly a novel response to excuse poor performance in passing on
a fault report. Hmm, it sort of suggests that the 3 days to report the
fault to BT is indeed correct.
>Can anyone recommend an ISP that would not leave their customers with no
>ADSL connection for 3 days and think this is perfectly acceptable? I need
>the connection for business use, so my main concern is reliability and high
>levels of customer service, rather than rock bottom prices.
>
>Many thanks for any suggestions.
I'm with Demon. Tech support from their ADSL team has been excellent
though I've only had to use it twice in 2.6 years - one 8hr outage that
was a BT problem already reported and a recent intermittent drop-out
problem when the guys I talked to listened to what I tried (in case it
was my end) suggested something I'd missed and, on the call back when it
didn't work, was immediately passed to BT. Mind you, BT engineer who
phoned the following day said he'd found no problem but it disappeared
after his visit, strange that. The tech guys certainly treated my
intermittent problem as seriously as a total loss of service.
Don't forget that whomsoever you change to for ADSL are beholden to BT.
Whether your ISP pass on problems immediately or not, you still have to
wait for BT to assign an engineer.
Perhaps, if Internet access is so essential to your business, you should
be looking for a leased line and a Service Level Agreement rather than a
bog standard ADSL line?
--
Pedt
Mike Tullett
<news:dubgh1p5opvvphhu9...@news.plus.net>
If the sample is truly random (unlikely I agree) then a sample size of only
30 will produce statistically significant results.
PS any stats I did was about 40 years ago:-)
--
Mike Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 02/09/2005 12:20:36 UTC
redtube
"JC" <johncalias-newsgroupsATyahooD0TcoD0Tuk> wrote in message
news:n4bgh151hksf1oj9k...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:08:50 +0100, "Roger M" <r...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >Andrews and Arnold
> >http://www.aaisp.net.uk/
> >
> >Not the cheapest - but they may support you better than some of the mass
> >market providers.
>
>
> Not the cheapest???? That's something of an understatement...their tariffs
> are ludicrous. It's a wonder they have any customers at all!
> John [Essex, UK]
Oh come on, imagine the status of showing people your "aaisp" e mail
address? lol
and only 27.02 inc vat per month
>redT London
Cullen Skink
> Can anyone recommend an ISP that would not leave their customers with
> no ADSL connection for 3 days and think this is perfectly acceptable?
> I need the connection for business use, so my main concern is
> reliability and high levels of customer service, rather than rock
> bottom prices.
It's not just Plusnet. Personally I think the current setup needs to be
overhauled. It was two months after my activation date before my BB went
live. One of the problems was that BT kept closing the fault ticket
after doing their remote line tests, so when I phoned my ISP (VirginNet)
for progress reports BT had closed the ticket and I would have to go
through the whole procedure again to raise a new one. A friend had a
similar problem when changing from BT dialup to BT Yahoo broadband.
BT,(either BTY or BT Wholesale) also closed fault tickets before the
fault was cleared. Once when he phoned, someone at BT told him if he
didn't phone every two days to say there was still a fault they would
close the ticket. It all seems very inefficient.
JC
Yes, but that's their *cheapest* home tariff!! Rising to £50.52 per month!!
Adam Piggott
Hash: SHA1
JC wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:08:50 +0100, "Roger M" <r...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>One company which used to have a very good reputation - although I have not
>>heard a lot about them lately - is Andrews and Arnold
>>http://www.aaisp.net.uk/
>>
>>Not the cheapest - but they may support you better than some of the mass
>>market providers.
>
>
>
> Not the cheapest???? That's something of an understatement...their tariffs
> are ludicrous. It's a wonder they have any customers at all!
I've been with AAISP for years. Their technical support is top notch, as is
their R&D ( http://www.aaisp.net.uk/aa/plans.html ) and general competency
& friendliness.
You get what you pay for with ADSL ISPs :-) I recommend them to friends and
family and almost all of my customers are happy AAISP users.
btw - doesn't having a business phone line with BT mean you get priority
fault troubleshooting?
Cheers
- --
Adam Piggott, Proprietor, Proactive Services (Computing).
http://www.proactiveservices.co.uk/
Please replace dot invalid with dot uk to email me.
Apply personally for PGP public key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFDGHEb7uRVdtPsXDkRAkJmAJ4giwfksOiIfIpVlD37MFk7JOSEOgCdE/Xm
DsuIBa37fdXlbj7cUioIPbs=
=4lXK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Reader
> > After a few calls to Plusnet's tech support which didn't
> > get beyond "your fault will be investigated in due course
> > but it could take 3 days", I phoned their customer
> > services to let them know that trying to run a business
> > with no access to the internet for 3 days was not really
> > on. Their response was that any other ISP would be just
> > as bad.
> Notwithstanding Plusnet's apparent delay reporting your fault to BT, if
> getting access to the internet is so crucial to running your business
> then it's *your* responsibility to make sure you can do so.
> ADSL is *not* suitable for business critical usage unless you've made
> alternative arrangements for internet access when it fails.
Zen ADSL accounts all come with backup dial-up access - so providing you
still have a working phoneline & dial-up modem you'll be able to get
online.
Regards,
Dave.
(nb. I work for Zen)
UKHierarchy
www.ntl.co.uk
superior sipport,not one hour of downtime in over 2 years of superb service.
That my opinion anyway fellas :-)
poster
>Zen ADSL accounts all come with backup dial-up access
Dial up on 0845 or an 080x service ? Most offer the former, "just in case"
but it can still mount up if one is considering dial-up at peak rate for a
few hours a day, and while there are cheaper options, few would expect to
have to pay more then the monthly ADSL cost to gain access for 2-3 days!
--
Plus.Net <http://tinyurl.com/dghgq> - recommend them and save cash!
14.99 for "Broadband Plus": upto 2000 kbps, Fine for surfing/mail.
Comes with guarantee allowing new users to migrate if unhappy.
Tids
> Can anyone recommend an ISP that would not leave their customers with
> no ADSL connection for 3 days and think this is perfectly acceptable?
For god's sake don't go to Pipex.....nightmare on elm street !
Tids
>
> After a few calls to Plusnet's tech support which didn't get beyond
> "your fault will be investigated in due course but it could take 3
> days", I phoned their customer services to let them know that trying
> to run a business with no access to the internet for 3 days was not
> really on. Their response was that any other ISP would be just as bad.
I think they have a fair point.
UKHierarchy
>
> For god's sake don't go to PLUSNET.....nightmare HQ'D IN SHEFFIELD>
--
----
"Sometimes I worry about being a success in a mediocre world."
Roger M
Adam <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> As I enter my third day at the office with no ADSL connection from
> Plusnet, I'm beginning to think that this is getting beyond a joke
> and I should think about finding a new ISP.
>
> The problem is some kind of fault on the line. According the details
> of the case on Plusnet's website, they have now - on the third day of
> the problem - reported the issue to BT for resolution. Why on earth
> did it have to take them so long to do this? I realise that faults on
> BT equipment may be outwith Plusnet's control, but surely they could
> report the problem sooner?
>
> After a few calls to Plusnet's tech support which didn't get beyond
> "your fault will be investigated in due course but it could take 3
> days", I phoned their customer services to let them know that trying
> to run a business with no access to the internet for 3 days was not
> really on. Their response was that any other ISP would be just as bad.
>
> Now I've been with Plusnet for several years, and in the past I have
> found them to be excellent. But I see they have recently become a
> PLC, and have no doubt adopted PLC standards of customer service (ie
> cut costs as much as possible to maximise short term profits, and
> don't worry about all the customers who will leave us as we'll have
> been paid our big director's bonus by then).
>
> The sad thing is that their customer service line of "the other ISPs
> are just as bad" may well be true, but I think I'm going to have to
> find out. This whole incident has really put me off Plusnet.
>
> Can anyone recommend an ISP that would not leave their customers with
> no ADSL connection for 3 days and think this is perfectly acceptable?
> I need the connection for business use, so my main concern is
> reliability and high levels of customer service, rather than rock
> bottom prices.
>
> Many thanks for any suggestions.
>
> Adam
As with *any* mission-critical facility, you need either an independent
backup or a guaranteed service level - neither of which comes with most
single broadband connections.
You need to assess your potential losses due to the failure of the facility,
and to decide how much it is worth spending to mitigate such losses. It's no
use just griping when something which has no guaranteed service level fails
to perform in the way you think it should.
Cullen Skink
> Adam wrote:
>> Can anyone recommend an ISP that would not leave their customers with
>> no ADSL connection for 3 days and think this is perfectly acceptable?
>
>
Have they moved premises then?
Adam
guys don't work for BT or Plusnet.
Many thanks for all the suggestions. I think the one about having something
more robust than a single ADSL line is very sensible, and I shall certainly
look into it further. Thanks also for the suggestions about the specific
ISPs. Speaking as a professional statistician, I can see why there was some
scepticism about the Which? report. Having said, that I think the message
that NTL should be avoided still comes out pretty strongly.
Best wishes
Adam
Kraftee
> "poster" <us-...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bnagh19id504qjc49...@news.plus.net...
>
>> Well, you don't need "high levels of customer service" if you have a
>> backup
>> provider. Really little need to know how good customer services
>> staff is - if
>
> Echo that. If cost is no object, get a backup provider - even
>
> Sure, there might be "better" ISPs for uptime than PlusNet, but
> PlusNet aren't >considerably< worse than any of the others imo.
> They're going downhill (in terms of disconnections - rarely do I get
> 6-10 hours without a d/c then r/c) but aren't even close to the
> bottom yet to warrant dropping them.
>
> All in my opinion, of course.
If you're getting disconnected/loss of synch every 6 - 10 hours you
really aught to escalate the issue by either checking out your internal
wiring yourself or go the whole hog & get PN to report a problem with BT
& have possible charges. Even at my worst, when I was fighting my
router problems, it was 36-48 hours before a drop, which normally was
back up within 120 seconds..
ADSL is/was sold as a 24 hour 7 days a week service, not a 6 hour & if
your lucky 10 hours....
Kraftee
> <alt.internet.providers.uk , Adam , nos...@nospam.com>
> <4317f3b9$0$26350$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
> <Fri, 2 Sep 2005 07:39:53 +0100>
>
>> The problem is some kind of fault on the line. According the details
>> of the case on Plusnet's website, they have now - on the third day
>> of the problem - reported the issue to BT for resolution. Why on
>> earth did it have to take them so long to do this? I realise that
>> faults on BT equipment may be outwith Plusnet's control, but surely
>> they could report the problem sooner?
>>
>> After a few calls to Plusnet's tech support which didn't get beyond
>> "your fault will be investigated in due course but it could take 3
>> days", I phoned their customer services to let them know that trying
>> to run a business with no access to the internet for 3 days was not
>> really on. Their response was that any other ISP would be just as
>> bad.
>>
>
> other isp would be just as bad .
>
SSSHHHHH don't tell anyone but I know from personal experience that one
ISP took 14 months, before they reported the problem to BT, who when
they got to sight & tested the line found it to be way outside
acceptable limits. So 3 days isn't bad at all..
Kraftee
> Gosh, I'm impressed by the prompt and helpful responses. What a shame
> you guys don't work for BT or Plusnet.
Cough, some of us do.....
ComPCs
says...
> Zen ADSL accounts all come with backup dial-up access - so providing you
> still have a working phoneline & dial-up modem you'll be able to get
> online.
As do Plusnet, AIUI - 0845 1400101
Terry R Brooking
two telephone lines?
Regards
-Terry
Nobody
> Seen people suggesting having two ADSL lines. How is this done? Do you need
> two telephone lines?
Yep.
Muxton
RolYat
kra...@kraftee.plus.nospamming says...
At which level? Tea Boy, Executive, or somewhere in between?
I'm lucky that 2 of my business clients have rather 'well-positioned'
job roles in the BT organistaion. It really is a case of who you know
where BT is concerned!
IanR
>Yep.
Notwithstanding that, it's still an interesting exercise as regards IP
and routing. How I wonder would you make it so that traffic would be
balanced, and the loss of one line would be transparent to hosts on
the inside of the NAT router(s)?
The main office might consider this if it could be made to work.
Kraftee
Tell me about it, I have personal experience of who you know matters
more than what...
John Underwood
(Reference: <431876af$0$3295$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>)
>Zen ADSL accounts all come with backup dial-up access - so providing you
>still have a working phoneline & dial-up modem you'll be able to get
>online.
Provided that the fault lies in the ADSL and not inside Zen itself.
I favour using a dial-up account for backup provided by another ISP.
Of course, I only use either of these ISPs to provide my access to the
Internet. My web and mail service are elsewhere. If they were
mission-critical they would also be mirrored.
Anyone who thinks this too expensive for their needs must be quite happy
to bear the cost of not having it. Even if you have a cast-iron service
level agreement, would the compensation you'd get for a failure be
enough an in time to keep your business in existence?
--
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address -it will work if you use it within 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a current
contact address. Do not write to the From: address.
Ray Bellis
> so providing you still have a working phoneline & dial-up
> modem you'll be able to get online.
Yes, and so do ours, but then I wasn't trying to turn my original
response into a marketing opportunity!
Ray
Nobody
>>Yep.
>
> Notwithstanding that, it's still an interesting exercise as regards IP
> and routing. How I wonder would you make it so that traffic would be
> balanced, and the loss of one line would be transparent to hosts on
> the inside of the NAT router(s)?
The main problem is that the two lines will have different IP addresses,
and every connection needs to use a single IP address consistently. In the
case of applications which use multiple linked connections (e.g. FTP),
all of the connections will have to use the same IP address.
By far the easiest approach to load balancing is to divide the computers
into two pools, with each pool using one of the lines. If one of the lines
goes down, both pools will use the remaining line. Any outstanding open
connections on the line which goes down will be lost (as you've lost one
of your IP addresses).
Operating multiple routes at the IP layer isn't really feasible for end
users. Normally, you have to get your ISP(s) to do this sort of thing for
you, which probably means being a "corporate" (as opposed to merely
"business") customer, or going to a "niche" ISP. A customised setup isn't
worth the hassle for a mass-market ISP like PlusNet.
Muxton
We (Entanet) support Multilink PPP, which presents a single logical
connection to the end user on 2 or more ADSL connections. As standard
we'll support 2, 3 or 4 lines, although we do have one customer who's
bonding 6 or 7.
You can either DIY if you have the relevant Cisco (or other vendor)
knowledge. The cost for that is simply n x ADSL lines plus the cost
of the equipment.
We also do a managed solution which includes preconfigured Cisco kit,
which is pricier, mainly because the equipment isn't cheap.
Drop me a line on jake....@entagroup.mungbeans.com. Address is
munged, get rid of the mungbeans to use it.
Paul Booth
>
> Yes, and so do ours, but then I wasn't trying to turn my original
> response into a marketing opportunity!
Meow!
IanR
>Operating multiple routes at the IP layer isn't really feasible for end
>users.
Was thinking this is probably the case, Windows doesn't cope too well
with multiple default gateways if these are in the same subnet, in
fact what seems to happen is that the first in the binding-order is
always used, even if it's inoperative.
I suppose a workaround would be to supply the webservice by proxy. At
least then there is only one place to switch routes if a failure
occurs, and this could be achieved by a fairly siimple piece of
programming that pings a server at intervals, and issues a <route
change> command if no success.. When everything is working the second
line could serve for email, to provide a degree of load-balancing.
Other option would be a simple 50-50 split of workstations; two
routers in same subnet, and alternate the default gateway settings
between them, from desk to desk. that way at least any user who needs
access with a line down could just borrow someone else's terminal.
David Hookham
I've a vague memory of someone who set up a kind of dual-ADSL setup. I can't
recall what kit he used (any ideas, Bud?) but no single byte would arrive
faster than the speed of the single line - he could just get twice of many
in the same time.
Nobody
>>Operating multiple routes at the IP layer isn't really feasible for end
>>users.
>
> Was thinking this is probably the case, Windows doesn't cope too well
> with multiple default gateways if these are in the same subnet, in
> fact what seems to happen is that the first in the binding-order is
> always used, even if it's inoperative.
That isn't the issue here. Even if your hosts cope fine with multiple
default gateways, if the gateways are doing NAT, each will perform the
translation differently, which won't work; different packets for a single
connection would appear to come from whichever gateway they went through.
> I suppose a workaround would be to supply the webservice by proxy. At
> least then there is only one place to switch routes if a failure
> occurs, and this could be achieved by a fairly siimple piece of
> programming that pings a server at intervals, and issues a <route
> change> command if no success.. When everything is working the second
> line could serve for email, to provide a degree of load-balancing.
One option for load balancing would be to just partition the internet
between the two gateways, i.e. half of all IP addresses go through the
first, the other half through the second. With an advanced router (e.g. a
Linux or BSD box, not an off-the-shelf router), you could even do stuff
like route connections to odd-numbered ports through one and even-numbered
ports through the other. But this has to be done per connection (or, for
applications using multiple linked connections such as FTP, per "session").
> Other option would be a simple 50-50 split of workstations; two
> routers in same subnet, and alternate the default gateway settings
> between them, from desk to desk. that way at least any user who needs
> access with a line down could just borrow someone else's terminal.
It wouldn't be hard to provide failover, but you wouldn't be able to do
"hot" failover with NAT, because the externally-visible IP address and
ports will change if the gateway changes. The easiest approach would be to
modify the DHCP configuration according to link status and just reboot the
affected workstations.
If you weren't using NAT, you would just need an ISP which allows
asymmetric routing (i.e. they will send packets with a source address
which doesn't route back to that connection) to get outbound
load-balancing at the IP layer. OTOH, inbound load-balancing is a
different (and altogether more complex) situation.
An alternative approach would be a VPN using a NAT router at a colocation
facility (with its own redundant connections) as the network's
externally-visible presence.
Jason Clifford
> I've a vague memory of someone who set up a kind of dual-ADSL setup. I can't
> recall what kit he used (any ideas, Bud?) but no single byte would arrive
> faster than the speed of the single line - he could just get twice of many
> in the same time.
What you are refering to us generally called "Bonded ADSL".
In a bonded ADSL or SDSL service multiple DSL lines are supplied (each
requiring its own telephone line) and using Multilink PPP the lines are
bonded together such that a single internet connection is presented by the
router at the customer end.
The benefits of this are several:
Firstly you have more bandwidth so, as you say, you can use a lot more
bandwidth at once.
Then you also have resilience so that if one connection drops the other
should continue with little or no perceived difference in service.
Our bonded ADSL service is offered either on a managed basis where a Cisco
router is supplied and managed so the user has pretty much nothing to do
other than to plug it in or a DIY service where the user, who has
sufficient technical ability, can simply buy however many lines they
require and we only charge the normal price for the services.
Jason Clifford
--
UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net
http://www.ukfsn.org/ 2Mb ADSL Broadband from just £14.98 / month
Bonded ADSL Now Available
Jim Crowther
>In message <4318169a$0$17492$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, at
>10:08:50 on Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Roger M <r...@privacy.net> wibbled
>>
>>One company which used to have a very good reputation - although I have not
>>heard a lot about them lately - is Andrews and Arnold
>>http://www.aaisp.net.uk/
>>
>>Not the cheapest - but they may support you better than some of the mass
>>market providers.
>
>But only if you want the support 9-5 Mon-Fri.
To be fair, that is the 'official' support time.
In practice it is better than 09:00 - 00:00 seven days a week.
--
Jim Crowther "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
Always learning.
Malcolm Knight.
news:b3uoh1tne9cqbt927...@4ax.com...
> We (Entanet) support Multilink PPP,
When my bonded line was switched from Netservices to Entanet the speed fell
to 70% of what it was and it has been that way for two months now. I'm told
you have an acknowledged problem, I wish you would give it a little higher
priority.
--
Malcolm
Muxton
I'm assuming you have an open support ticket, but all the same if you
drop me an email at work I'll get it looked into.
jake.perks!entagroup.com (replace the !).
The only issue that I can think of is the one that occurs when one of
your lines is connected to a Cisco access concentrator and the other
one to a Juniper access concentrator. This occurs way back inside
BT's network and there's nothing that us (or any other provider
supporting MLPPP) can do about it because we have no control over it.
The problem is that the Cisco and Juniper kit reports the line speed
differently, and it's this incompatibility that causes problems with
multilinked connections.
One customer experienced this, ordered another line, worked out which
2 out of 3 lines were connected to the same kit and ceased the odd one
out. It all works 100% now.
Jake
poster
>One customer experienced this, ordered another line, worked out which
>2 out of 3 lines were connected to the same kit and ceased the odd one
>out. It all works 100% now.
So you're on about the DSLAM at the exchange, I assume. Interesting to
see that at least there is some workaround, for the 'just in case' some
other firm/user comes up against this situation. Thanks Jake. Peter M
Paul Cupis
> One customer experienced this, ordered another line, worked out which
> 2 out of 3 lines were connected to the same kit and ceased the odd one
> out. It all works 100% now.
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to ask BT to do a lift-and-shift onto the
other manufacturers equipment?
Maybe not easier, as you'd have to explain to BT what you want to do,
but surely cheaper?
Muxton
wrote:
Lift and shift is used to try and work around DSLAM problems. The
concentraters are upstram of the DSLAMs, so there's actually a high
chance that wouldn't have worked.
And as you rightly point out, trying to get BT to do a lift and shift
in the first place is more hassle than it's worth!
Muxton
wrote:
Not the DSLAM, I'm talking about the access concentrators that are
upstream of the DSLAMs (the access concentrator takes feeds from
DSLAMs in several exchanges).
I'm not 100% sure what happens at this point, but I suspect that the
original line was connected to a DSLAM that connected back to a Cisco
unit, and the second line, provisioned much later presumably through a
different DSLAM, connected back to a Juniper unit.
Jake
poster
>Not the DSLAM, I'm talking about the access concentrators that are
>upstream of the DSLAMs (the access concentrator takes feeds from
>DSLAMs in several exchanges).
Ah, so it would not be impossible for some connection to switch from
one to another if maintenance/upgrade work was done. I guess that
customer has kept all three lines, on the basis that 2 of 3 will
always be on one type of kit ... Can understand BT not being
tied to one supplier, but that level of uncertainty re bonding is
going to come back to hit customers from time to time and not cheap
to rectify (unless you can offer a deal when they only use 2 of 3
'actively' and the third has virtually no traffic passing on it (?)
[A bit like the AAISP "backup" line at a nominal monthly fee]
--
| runbox.com - 1000 MB of mail storage and 100 MB for files...
| 30 day free trial... <http://web.vfm-deals.com/runbox/>
| Can accept mail for your domain and apply filtering...
| Point your MX record to mx.runbox.com and use POP/IMAP...
Malcolm Knight.
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:55:07 +0100, "Malcolm Knight."
> <my2in...@spam-trap.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Muxton" <ja...@jake.org.mungbeans.uk> wrote in message
> >news:b3uoh1tne9cqbt927...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> We (Entanet) support Multilink PPP,
> >
> >When my bonded line was switched from Netservices to Entanet the speed
fell
> >to 70% of what it was and it has been that way for two months now. I'm
told
> >you have an acknowledged problem, I wish you would give it a little
higher
> >priority.
>
> I'm assuming you have an open support ticket, but all the same if you
> drop me an email at work I'll get it looked into.
> jake.perks!entagroup.com (replace the !).
I'm with one of your resellers so have no real right to complain to you
directly. I have two 2MB 20:1 lines (same as with Netservices) but now
cannot get above 2.6Mb down (up is OK). I have the option of being switched
back to NS free of charge but my provider is keen to solve the problem
rather than give up.
Your reselling customer's technical guy is Mark, I'm sure you will know
him. :-)
>The only issue that I can think of is the one that occurs when one of
> your lines is connected to a Cisco access concentrator and the other
> one to a Juniper access concentrator. This occurs way back inside
> BT's network and there's nothing that us (or any other provider
> supporting MLPPP) can do about it because we have no control over it.
> The problem is that the Cisco and Juniper kit reports the line speed
> differently, and it's this incompatibility that causes problems with
> multilinked connections.
I had experience of that with another provider. They effectively fixed it by
running a script into my router (or maybe ot was theirs) every five minutes
that performed some checks and fixed the problem if it was there.
> One customer experienced this, ordered another line, worked out which
> 2 out of 3 lines were connected to the same kit and ceased the odd one
> out. It all works 100% now.
Until BT swap things around again?
--
Malcolm
Paul Cupis
> On 12 Sep 2005 20:20, Muxton <ja...@jake.org.mungbeans.uk> wrote:
>>Not the DSLAM, I'm talking about the access concentrators that are
>>upstream of the DSLAMs (the access concentrator takes feeds from
>>DSLAMs in several exchanges).
>
> Ah, so it would not be impossible for some connection to switch from
> one to another if maintenance/upgrade work was done. I guess that
> customer has kept all three lines, on the basis that 2 of 3 will
> always be on one type of kit ... Can understand BT not being
> tied to one supplier, but that level of uncertainty re bonding is
> going to come back to hit customers from time to time and not cheap
> to rectify (unless you can offer a deal when they only use 2 of 3
> 'actively' and the third has virtually no traffic passing on it (?)
>
> [A bit like the AAISP "backup" line at a nominal monthly fee]
The wholesale cost of maintaining an ADSL enabled line is at least
8.40/month (Home service, BT IPStream, CBC/UBC).
poster
>The wholesale cost of maintaining an ADSL enabled line is at least
>8.40/month (Home service, BT IPStream, CBC/UBC).
Understood. But there's quite a difference between that, and what an ISP
needs to charge to cover the traffic for the customer. I wasn't expecting
or implying anything for free, but at nominal cost, as per AAISP (which see
if you are unfamiliar... www.aa.nu should allow you to find pricing info).
Just that the ISP might be willing, if there is low/no traffic on this third
connection, to charge at cost, so they may be providing 2x 2000 kbps @ 75pm
and 1x 2000 kbps (reserve line) @ 10pm. See what I mean ? Trimming the
text I wrote to show the target of your comment might have helped, but I
trust this was the aspect which caused you to post. Peter Morgan.
poster
>I wasn't expecting or implying anything for free, but at nominal cost,
<http://www.aaisp.net.uk/aa/adsl/adslother.html> has their pricing for
"extra line" 11.00 +VAT, 20.00 +VAT, 150 +VAT for home, office, SDSL.
[FWIW, I have no connection with AAISP, but did get a Nokia 5.1 in
'96 from Andrews and Arnold... so might be deemed a past customer :-]
Colin Bull
The watchguard Firebox X5 will cope with 2 ADSL lines in, and failover
automatically, but it is a bit costly for home use, about £290. You would
also need 2 ADSL modems to feed into it
http://www.watchguard.com/products/edgex5.asp#wan
for more info or contact me.
Colin
John Rumm
> and routing. How I wonder would you make it so that traffic would be
> balanced, and the loss of one line would be transparent to hosts on
> the inside of the NAT router(s)?
Load balancers are not without their problems, but something like this
may do it:
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/hardware/reviews/2003/q2/neteyes_cyclone200.asp
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Ben Mack
http://www.firebrick.co.uk/
Watchfront also offer Bonded ADSL Packages
http://www.watchfront.co.uk/srv_bondedadsl.php
HTH
--
Ben Mack
Watchfront Electronics - Bespoke R&D - http://www.watchfront.co.uk/
Watchfront Internet - ADSL, Colo - http://www.watchfront.net/
Are you bricking it? - Firewalls - http://www.firebrick.co.uk/